Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

HVMN interview with Aubrey de Gray & ref. to Michael Rae

Recommended Posts

An oldie but goodie with Aubrey de Gray.  While he has had better and more technical interviews introducing the SENS methodology, I found his take on the extent of LE expected with CR while not entirely novel, interesting, and worth sharing:


Besides his usual commentary that as we move from lower organisms to higher and longer-lived organisms the benefit of CR empirically has been shown to decline, as we may expect from evolutionary arguments pertaining to the duration of famines as a proportion of an organism's lifespan and reproduction, he emphasized a couple of memorable statistics -( I know this is not new to old-timer CR's, but interesting to hear directly from Aubrey ) --:


1) The lack of survival benefit in NIA monkey trial versus 5% life extension in @ U Wisc , arguing that the benefit is likely somewhere in between because the controls had unusually good diets versus unhealthy SAD respectively for the two trials.  The argument is not new, but a reminder of about what percent life extension was suggested in the U Wisc group. 


Personally I find the health improvements in both trials most compelling ( quality of life improvement as opposed to profound and dramatic life extension).


2) Natural caloric restriction example - Okinawa Japan.  Though often cited "triple" rate of centenarians, he points out that on average this translates to only about 2 year increased survival. 


This appears to be on the generous side in some respects given the table here: http://okicent.org/( life expectancy 81.2 in Okinawa vs 79.9 in the rest of Japan which is healthy on average but was not calorically restricted). Of course if comparing to a less healthy society the benefit looks better, but  geroscientists would appropriately see these as unfair controls if we are discussing true CR.


Regarding the centenarians we frequently discuss here, it looked to be around 50/100,000 or about half a percent: http://okicent.org/cent.html ... also, for gentlemen in the crowd, 90% of them were women. 


The US statistics have come up since then  at about 2.2/10,000 as of around 2015:


In the U.S., 80% are women: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-centenarians/ranks-of-u-s-centenarians-growing-rapidly-report-idUSKCN0UZ2IR



I seem to remember Peter Attia recently quoting around 0.4% of the population, but this sounds too generous and I suspect it its a conditional probability taking out infant mortality / younger deaths or another sort of contingent or conditional probability


....whilst sadly a new generation of Okinawans with Westernized diet on a trajectory for far below rather than well above average outcomes. 


Following the interview, Geoffrey Woo tries to make the case that captivity could have limited the lifespan in the CR group; AdG countered previously that you would need to have a compelling reason to expect the experimental group to be affected more by this than the controls.


Some of these were discussed around 24:10 in part 1 and continue to part 2.  


Also interesting, sometimes i forget that our very own Michael Rae here is a celebrity of sorts:

Co-authored Ending Aging with Aubrey, etc.


 ( consider donating to SENS ( http://www.sens.org/donate), crsociety, etc.)


I was a little surprised to hear the reference in part II @ 23:15


[ in reference to interviewing Michael Rae he states ] "We'll have him on soon" -- alas I was disappointed on searching following this 2016 interview I could not find the follow-up interview.  


Michael, any prospects for recent interviews with you @ HVMN / "Thinking Podcast or on other podcasts or lectures?





Part I


Part II


PS - may throw you off: the podcast changed names from HVMN to the Thinking Podcast between parts.  HVMN is still the company name.

Edited by Mechanism

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that this is pretty much become the majority opinion on these boards - CR will extend healthspan, but not lifespan (or at least very minimally in case of lifespan). This again argues for the disconnection between healthspan and lifespan - but it's still worthwhile to spend your last years healthy rather than merely surviving - squaring the curve. I think these boards have drifted to more of a focus on health than strictly lifespan extension. Most are (perhaps) resigned to living not much longer if at all, but betting on living in robust health until the last second just before they drop dead.

Edited by TomBAvoider

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, there is evidence that the following factors contribute to increased healthspan and AVERAGE lifespan: CRON, daily vigorous aerobic exercise, excellent medical care, mindfulness and meditation.

Despite Aubrey's well thought out skepticism, I am one of those who believes it possible that some of these factors might also lead to increased MAXIMAL lifespan.

How much (increased maximal lifespan) from each of these factors is unclear (in fact, some of these factors are not clearly defined (what kind of vigorous exercise?; what defines "excellent" medical care).

But among these, IMO CRON and possibly exercise stand out as our best option to (almost certainly) increase our healthspan -- and, perhaps, even lifespan.

50 years from now, some statistics about the healthspan and lifespan of long standing CRON practitioners -- will finally give some very solid evidence on this subject.


Note also that some long time CRON practitioners are more rigorous than others -- and our diets are all different.


Some of us are the guinea pigs.




-- Saul

Edited by Saul

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Saul:  ...some of these factors might also lead to increased MAXIMAL lifespan.



A group of  CRON+* practitioners increasing maximal lifespan would mean  their  living  on average past,  say,  115 years?


Using maximum-reported-age-at-death data, the Einstein researchers put the average maximum human life span at 115 years -- a calculation allowing for record-oldest individuals occasionally living longer or shorter than 115 years. (Jeanne Calment [122 yrs.], they concluded, was a statistical outlier.) Finally, the researchers calculated 125 years as the absolute limit of human lifespan. Expressed another way, this means that the probability in a given year of seeing one person live to 125 anywhere in the world is less than 1 in 10,000.




List of the verified oldest people




* CRON+ =  CRON plus optimal exercise, medical care etc.

Edited by Sibiriak

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mechanism for the updated info of the extent of LE expected with CR.  While the points are not unfamiliar, your concise summary is quite useful.

Edited by Sibiriak

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

My take; All these computations and calculations are based on axioms, which may be completely false, partially true or totally false (some axioms partly based on some minimal data, that is much too meagre to be statistically significant).

Those readers of these forums who maintain a rigorous CRON diet, may provide some limited human data, concerning maximal lifespan.

Of course, as (almost) everyone in this thread notes, the evidence is already pretty strong that CRON will increase healthspan, and (probably) average lifespan.


Sibiriac and Mechanism: I won't hypothesize any conjectured numbers that pertain to humans; the data is too sparse. "Computed" numbers on available data is essentially "guesswork".

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this